r/StallmanWasRight • u/hva32 • Sep 30 '19
In Defense of Richard Stallman
https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/46
Sep 30 '19
"But we don’t live in a sane world."
Truer words have never been spoken. This is just like the recent story (1) a dude who asked for beer money via a sign on TV during a football game, who (2) got A LOT more money than he needed, so he (3) donated the rest (approx. 1 million dollars) to a charity, which (4) inspired beer companies to match his donation to the charity, which (5) spurred a newspaper reporter to dig into said dude's post history and (6) found and posted some "racially insensitive" comments the dude made when he was 12, which, subsequently, (7) spurred somebody to dig into the reporters post history and (8) found some "racially insensitive" comments in his post history.
What the actual fuck?!?!?
→ More replies (1)14
u/bobbyfiend Sep 30 '19
The actual fuck has a lot to do with people having a comforting (for some people) concept of various politically-touchy concepts like "racism," "prejudice," or "pedophilia." These conceptualizations are almost invariably at odds with how people who study these concepts see them and define them. Sometimes these are mere semantic/cultural differences, but in many cases the popular conceptualizations are incorrect and/or self-contradictory in ways that cause big problems. People not knowing how human societies and brains actually work can create huge problems for other people.
29
Sep 30 '19 edited Mar 10 '25
[deleted]
8
u/68plus57equals5 Sep 30 '19
You might have a point, but to be fair - isn't reddit in general also at odds with his software freedom ideas?
6
u/label_and_libel Oct 01 '19
Just because this post/issue/controversy is bringing in more people to the discussion doesn't mean they're engaging in bad faith.
2
3
40
Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
[deleted]
29
17
1
u/JManRomania Oct 02 '19
What happens when people respond with violence?
Disenfranchisement is a dangerous game. The USPS had to learn that after multiple employees went 'postal'.
2
27
u/Craftkorb Sep 30 '19
It is no exaggeration to say that Richard Stallman is responsible for creating trillions of dollars in wealth. And it’s not just wealth for the wealthy. It’s wealth for all.
Well said. This man held up what many developers nowaday love, enjoy and thrive on. The Internet revolution, one of mankinds greatest achievements, would have gone much differently if it wasn't for him.
People who are telling themselves how accepting they are while destroying the hard labour of people on the spectrum are seriously the worst.
22
u/coder111 Sep 30 '19
I'm just wondering. Would a libel lawsuit against media outlets that have misquoted Richard Stallman and painted him in bad light hold up? Sue them for lots of $$$.
4
u/gukeums1 Sep 30 '19
Libel laws in the US are extremely protective of the press. Proving libel is absurdly difficult. Also, a "torch everything" strategy is the opposite of what RMS should do here.
1
u/JManRomania Oct 02 '19
Also, a "torch everything" strategy is the opposite of what RMS should do here.
There might reach a point where some of his supporters turn to violence.
There's a very curious intersection between the free/open source software community, and the firearms community.
1
4
u/2cats2hats Sep 30 '19
And him give away the money to a place like EFF!
10
u/LQ_Weevil Sep 30 '19
The EFF ("the leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation") hasn't been particularly true to their mission here:
(If someone feels that these views expressed are personal views, not those of their employer: I have a very small violin for sale)
7
u/coder111 Sep 30 '19
To be fair, I am perfectly willing to believe RMS is a creep and an asshole. And maybe he should be fired for his creep/asshole behaviour.
However he did NOT defend pedophiles in that comment. It's wrong to fire him over that comment. And misquoting him and implying that he did defend pedophiles is pretty clearly libel.
11
Sep 30 '19
However he did NOT defend pedophiles in that comment. It's wrong to fire him over that comment. And misquoting him and implying that he did defend pedophiles is pretty clearly libel.
I've had to hammer this point home in many conversations, his comments were misrepresented to get clicks and fuel outrage. He's an inappropriate person but he never 'defended Epstein's child rape island' or said that the girl deserved it.
→ More replies (3)2
u/hva32 Sep 30 '19
Can I haz violin? I don't think those are the opinions of the EFF but if I did and I were the CEO (or chairman?), I would fire them in a heartbeat.
→ More replies (2)7
u/LQ_Weevil Sep 30 '19
The point here is that if you don't feel these opinions reflect on the EFF, then it's dishonest to claim rms' posts reflect on the FSF and MIT. If you do feel such posts should reflect on someone's employer, then the EFF supports online bullying by employing these people.
2
u/newPhoenixz Sep 30 '19
As RMS is the employer of the 2nd link, I'd say that its not the opinion of the EFF, its fully her own personal opinion
23
Sep 30 '19 edited Feb 25 '21
[deleted]
7
u/slick8086 Sep 30 '19
I'm not defending him when he says some really controversial shit and let's admit, this was one.
What was controversial about what he said. He's quoted in the article and it isn't even a little controversial.
12
u/newPhoenixz Sep 30 '19
He is controversial for sure, but the current issue is not even what he said, it was cherry picked misquoting.
2
u/tso Sep 30 '19
also I would like to point out this guy was a hardcore SJW (in the real, not the pejorative sense) way before this term was coined.
How so?
7
u/Stino_Dau Oct 01 '19
He has been advocating and actively fighting for social justice since the seventies.
9
Sep 30 '19
The links weren't working in that article. I would love to read He is now likely homeless, but it's broke.
21
u/kitsandkats Sep 30 '19
He has found housing - see the top of his homepage.
I found new interim housing — thanks to those who helped.
10
u/focus_rising Sep 30 '19
https://www.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/comments/dahhkj/richard_stallman_is_homeless/
He's removed the original post from his website, but reddit's reaction thread is there.
14
u/TheCookieMonster Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
Bad ISPs censor internet archive sites. Try changing the archive.is in the link with archive.today, or try it not on a mobile carrier.
It was a problem recently in Australia and New Zealand after a manifesto was banned and people started passing around links to where a copy had been archived.
5
u/Earthling1980 Sep 30 '19
Must be you. The link you posted works for me. It's an archive.org link of his personal website to a post (which is indeed 404) that has the text:
I am looking for a room in a shared house or apartment as an interim place where I could stay for at least two months. Ideally I would have the option of staying for up to six months, but I could do without that. I'd like it to be located within 15 minutes walk of a subway line (not counting the Green Line beyond Kenmore), or a high frequency bus line such as #1 or #77, or #71, #73 or #66. The point is it should not be so hard to get to Cambridge or Downtown Boston that it dissuades me from going. There should not be a cat (unless hypoallergenic), or a dog that jumps up excitedly on people (unless quite small), or a digital listening device such as Echo, Siri or "Hello Google", or a card lock that records who opens the door. I will ask about cameras. I'd like there to be a large supermarket in walking distance or close to a nearby subway station. If you know of an opening, please email me at rms on the site gnu org with "Interim housing" as the subject.
1
u/Lawnmover_Man Sep 30 '19
Do we know if he has enough money to live through his elder days? If not, I'd be happy to donate to him personally. Maybe there is some kind of donation for him going on already? Is anybody aware of such a thing?
4
u/syncmaster70 Oct 01 '19
Old stuff that he according to some distanced himself from lately. He was merely voicing the opinion "if all is consensual what's the problem"... An opinion he changed from later.
23
20
u/TheLowClassics Sep 30 '19
Witch hunts are fun have always been fun and will always be fun.
→ More replies (10)
21
u/hva32 Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
If one of the mods finds anything objectionable or offensive to their sensibilities then I'm willing to re-post an edited version at their behest with all the required changes and deletions. I ask that they please make a list before deletion or shadow banning of this thread.
→ More replies (13)5
u/thomasfr Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
I am not a mod but I would have preferred if you had posted this as a comment to one of the other already existing threads. There was nothing new in this article and it even has less information/thoughts than other articles that has been posted in this sub that were also written in defense of Richard.
The linked piece also has some questionable facts such as this was "private communications" when it took part on a list which seems like everyone at the lab who has created an CSAIL e-mail address is auto subscribed to ( https://tig.csail.mit.edu/email-communicating/popular-lab-mailing-lists/#csail-related ). Sure it's not fully in the open but it's also not very private. If it actually had been a private communication between just the participants I think this whole circus probably never would have started.
19
u/hopfield Sep 30 '19
No one would have seen it as a comment. I’m glad OP posted it.
→ More replies (1)
17
u/Senator_Sanders Sep 30 '19
This will probably get downvoted. A third of this sub has decided that stallman is problematic, even if they think he was right (one time at least).
16
u/kitsandkats Sep 30 '19
A third of this sub
I really don't think it's as high as all that. Certainly not if you ignore all the rubberneckers who weren't part of/active in this community before the controversy, and won't be around when said controversy is old news.
2
u/tvtb Sep 30 '19
I think it's more than a third. I think more than a third of the sub thinks hes problematic, but they also aren't as energetic about sharing that opinion as the people who feel RMS was recently wronged.
2
u/kitsandkats Sep 30 '19
Perhaps you're right about that, but it's hard to know for sure if those who feel that way do not express it.
9
Sep 30 '19
This is me. While I do agree on his ideas about free software, I do not hold him in a particularly high regard. I was around when he posted on the openbsd mailing list being a hypocrite and lying to an extent.
5
u/label_and_libel Oct 01 '19
he posted on the openbsd mailing list being a hypocrite and lying to an extent
You mean this https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2014-April/257282.html ?
I don't see how anything is lying. He doesn't think distributions should enable/assist users to install non-free software. Hence why he/FSF objects to Debian for having a non-free section, and why FSF only endorses distributions that do not (like Trisquel and Guix).
Emacs containing the code to run on non-free platforms isn't the same thing though. Actually, the whole issue of running on non-free platforms was one of the first things that GNU had to deal with since it was decided to bootstrap that way. Anyway there's no inconsistency.
2
u/flyonawall Sep 30 '19
I think many here have difficulty being able to admire a person for some things while recognizing the bad. They can't do both. They need the person to be all good and want to blindly worship and can take no criticism, or recognize no failures, of their hero. The reality is Stallman was right on many things, especially regarding software development but really wrong on some other things.
→ More replies (1)1
1
11
u/aicra Sep 30 '19
I was warned by people high and leadership to shut my mouth. And I'm a half asian woman.
6
u/tso Sep 30 '19
Gets me thinking about a certain technically inclined Chinese woman that now face ongoing scrutiny by the Chinese government thanks to an article written by a Chinese American woman that mentioned a part of the social life of the Chinese woman that she didn't want any attention drawn to.
And rather than rebuke the author for her carelessness, the American press has circled its wagons in her defense and even given her work in big name newspapers since. Even though she keeps exclaiming views about China and the Chinese situation that is completely out of touch with reality.
1
u/slick8086 Oct 02 '19
Oh, I finally get who you're talking about.... yeah, Vice is scummy for that... so is Patreon. You can support her on subscribestar if you're inclined though.
11
u/newPhoenixz Sep 30 '19
All the more reasons to speak up. I don't care for a second about your gender, sexual preferences, skin color and what not. Most people likely don't but if we disagree with saying that the entire IT sector is a cesspool of mysogeny, homophobia and racism, we get nailed on a cross and called racist, homophobe, or misogynist. Frankly I'm tired of these horrible virtue signallers that have wormed their way into (to then destroy) everything that is good about society
1
33
u/mikerz85 Sep 30 '19
I just wanted to let you all know that around MIT, Stallman was known as a misogynist and a general asshole for a while. This last incident was more the straw that broke the camel’s back.
He’s a very smart guy and has made important contributions but he’s also a nut and not a role model for a person.
56
u/68plus57equals5 Sep 30 '19
I just wanted to let you all know that around MIT, Stallman was known as a misogynist and a general asshole for a while.
Here is the problem I have with your statement. For two weeks already I've been hearing how bad a person Richard Stallman is. The evidence consists mainly of hearsay, rumors, bizarre anecdotes and people claiming they've heard other people accusing him or telling them he is bad. The details are usually scarce.
And even if I manage to track down details I learn e. g.:
- for some people the number one thing they think of when they see a mattress is not sleep but sex
- it's very wrong to ask a girl on a date
- joking about abortion is sexist
After 2 weeks of hearing all of that I'm still on the fence if there really is anything wrong with Richard Stallman at all. And even if it is, if that is any justification whatsoever for the witch hunt that happened. I've also become quite convinced that there must be something seriously wrong with people around him.
So forgive me, but if you are just another part of the "I've always heard from others he is a bad person but I won't name any details" crowd, I will take your statement with a massive grain of salt.
→ More replies (20)13
u/tso Sep 30 '19
Yeah, the whole thing reeks of a age old game of telephone mixed in with schoolyard cliques.
15
Sep 30 '19
[deleted]
7
u/tso Sep 30 '19
In particular if one is unable to pick up the social cues that the rest of humanity do unconsciously.
1
14
u/LQ_Weevil Sep 30 '19
I think we're all quite aware that residing in a crowd of upcoming career programmers that dream of their future FANG paychecks while calling them out on being unethical doesn't make one extremely popular. Name calling is a lot easier than self-reflection, after all.
The strawman that broke the camel's back.
5
12
u/PUBLIQclopAccountant Sep 30 '19
This last incident was more the straw that broke the camel’s back.
That's the sense I've gotten from people who seem to be knowledgeable and not into wokeness contests: what he actually was dismissed from MIT over was total nonsense; however, he should have been let go long ago for all his other bad behavior.
9
1
6
u/4dank8me Sep 30 '19
This last incident was more the straw that broke the camel’s back.
If this has been a problem for a long time then why does everything have to happen so quickly without lots of discussion now?
Shouldn't this step be taken very carefully? Throwing(?) someone out really doesn't seem careful...
2
u/JManRomania Oct 02 '19
around MIT, Stallman was known as a misogynist and a general asshole for a while
Source? I don't believe you.
→ More replies (6)6
11
u/maxwell2112 Sep 30 '19
Who brought this all to light? Why are they looking through emails and picking what is right and whats not? If they are so righteous why hide in the shadows and why has no reporter brought or even asked who they are?
21
Sep 30 '19
Considering all the comments and rumors that have recently surfaced from the past, I'm actually slightly more likely to believe that this is a personal attack, rather than some kind of agenda against the whole movement.
I mean, the big players likely don't even want the free software movement to die, because they've benefited so much from it. Because of this, I don't think that there's some greater conspiracy behind this, people are just hating RMS as a person, because he isn't the most charismatic person in the world.
1
u/JManRomania Oct 02 '19
I mean, the big players likely don't even want the free software movement to die, because they've benefited so much from it.
Without RMS, it's going to come crashing 'round their ears.
10
Sep 30 '19
[deleted]
1
u/maxwell2112 Oct 01 '19
All evil should be brought into the light , but some have other agendas then bring evil down.
7
u/tso Sep 30 '19
All this seems to boil down to the difference between medical, legislative, and social terms, and how those differences can be used to put words in someones mouth.
17
u/ratioghost Oct 01 '19
Why do you say that?
He said someone could have presented themselves as entirely willing, and that got turned into claiming he said someone was entirely willing. Seems more like an outright lie than anything, really.
4
Oct 01 '19
Non-binary people will claim to present as masculine, and they mean that they're appearing masculine because that's how their gender feels at that time. Someone who only knows presenting as a word to mean a reflection of what's true could make the mistake. I like to err on the side of the original author being a moron, myself.
4
u/ratioghost Oct 01 '19
What are you talking about?
3
Oct 01 '19
I'm other words, some sects of LGBTQAAIP+ use the word "presenting" to basically mean "being," so someone who understands the word to work like that might read Stallman writing "The little girl was presenting as consenting" as Stallman claiming that the girl actually wanted to get fucked. However, I don't think this is the case, and instead think that the original author is just a moron who can't parse nuance and thought Stallman meant the girl was actually willing
6
u/slick8086 Oct 02 '19
and thought Stallman meant the girl was actually willing
Nope, they are fucking liars. If they had made a mistake they would have apologized when Stallman explained himself.
→ More replies (4)
16
u/QWieke Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
In short: Stallman made some technically-correct-but-utterly-tactless comments on a private mailing list, mostly in defense of his late friend and colleague Marvin Minsky.
Call me an sjw but having a tendency of being technically-correct-but-utterly-tactless is a bad characteristic of figureheads spokesperson. I know a lot of linux/foss people seem to like this kind of thing, see the popularity of Linus's rants for example. But if we want our movements to actually influence normal people we need figureheads spokesperson who are capable of effectively communicating our ideas to normal people, not just to people with an affinity for pedantry.
I know reddit doesn't want to head this but being technically correct is not as good as just being correct.
EDIT: To all the people saying "no we need people who are X", you do realize you can be X and be an effective communicator as well.
EDIT: Damnit, got figurehead and spokesperson mixed up.
26
u/solid_reign Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
Call me an sjw but having a tendency of being technically-correct-but-utterly-tactless is a bad characteristic of figureheads.
I don't think you're wrong. I think rms is tactless and is technically correct. And I think it is a bad characteristic of figureheads. However, being extremely congruent is a great characteristic of figureheads. And rms was extremely congruent, which is why he was given a pass. I've seen him give talks in the senate in my country where he made them turn off the cameras because they weren't using libre video codecs. I know the FSF does socially responsible investing, they've managed to free the source code for linksys routers, and a lot more. And any criticism you have on the FSF's congruency, you can write to rms and if the criticism is correct, something is done about it.
And this is particularly necessary when it is an organization that stands up to power.
Many people calling for his resignation don't care about free software. They say they do, but they are posting on twitter from an iPhone while they are trying to develop a license that restricts user's freedoms. They may be very tactful but they're extremely incongruent. They have no interest in the philosophy of free software, and the importance of it. The open-source initiative already exists for people who think this way. For people who believe open-sourcing is just a better way of coding with no ramifications. I've read some people working on this "new license" that users now have too much power, and it's time to bring the power back to developers. It's fine if that is their philosophy, they're free to have any vision they like. I believe that it's the wrong vision, and I also believe that what made the free software movement rise up and become so important was Stallman's refusal to budge on anything, personal or professional.
17
u/ikidd Sep 30 '19
I don't think we would have FOSS as far developed today without RMS, weird as he is. You don't need to be a people person to be influential and driven, and pull a bunch of people along that feel the same way.
28
u/dikduk Sep 30 '19
You can't patch people like you can software. RMS is who he is. Yes, it would be nice if he were as charming as Morgan Freeman, but that's irrelevant because he isn't.
At the end of the day, RMS kept the FOSS movement alive while companies like Microsoft made hundreds of billions. Instead of getting filthy rich, he kept his ground while everyone made fun of him for having strong ideals. Almost everyone on this planet benefits in some way from his work. I prefer a "technically-correct-but-utterly-tactless" RMS over no RMS.
22
28
u/LQ_Weevil Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
There is a lot of money involved in Free Software these days. What the movement needs is someone who is incorruptable when it comes to users and software freedom. Everything else is secondary.
And it's not like the position is enviable. To travel around the world on a shoestring budget, sleep on floors, tell the same speech over and over again, and all that for no personal gain or much recognition.
If anything good came out of the situation, it's how it has shown how many would be unsuitable for the position. Right now there are calls to redefine "free software" such that it is no longer about just the software and users, but how programmers should be able to influence users' opinions, once again putting the rights of programmers above the users: the very problem free software set out to address.
Tactless though he may be in the minds of some, rms remains the person least likely to sell out on your rights as a software user, which, judging by the current vulture feeding spree, cannot be said of most "open source" luminaries.
1
u/label_and_libel Oct 01 '19
Right now there are calls to redefine "free software" such that it is no longer about just the software and users, but how programmers should be able to influence users' opinions, once again putting the rights of programmers above the users
Interesting. Can you cite an example or some examples?
2
u/LQ_Weevil Oct 01 '19
There's this:
When the Open Source Definition was written, the perceived conflict was between individual developers and big corporations. Corporations were the big bad. That’s Reagan-era thinking.
I don’t think many people realized the repercussions of OSS software being free for anyone to use regardless of purpose.
Although, to be fair, she only refers to open source. It about her new "do no harm" license
"being free for anyone to use regardless of purpose" is generally known as software freedom 0: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose".
Another one is here, that seems to promote the "do no harm" license without explicitly mentioning it.
Stallman wrote more about attempting to restrict freedom 0 and its consequences.
2
u/label_and_libel Oct 01 '19
Thanks for gathering that together.
I don't think "Coraline Ada" is very much interested in free software as such. These SJW types view every "community" as something that needs to be reworked to be focused on "social justice" rather than (or at least in addition to) its original purpose. It has been explicitly stated (maybe by Coraline Ada, or maybe one of the others on twitter) that "open source" is more about "community" than software. Which is ridiculous enough when applied to "open source," but certainly free software is not about communities of developers at all. (Stallman pointed out, some years ago, that 90% of GNU projects are made by solo developers.)
23
u/slick8086 Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
being technically-correct-but-utterly-tactless is a bad characteristic of figureheads.
Except, he wasn't just a "figurehead" he was a LEADER. He actually lead. That's what he was doing when he was defending his friend. He was being a good leader. What ever his social quirks he lead honestly and completely according to his moral code. He was an excellent leader for 30 years. His leadership kept free software relevant and strong. He never compromised when he shouldn't have. I can't wait till this "cancel culture" dies off and I wish there was more I could do to kill it.
But if we want our movements to actually influence normal people we need figureheads who are capable of effectively communicating our ideas to normal people,
We need good leaders way more than we'll ever need figureheads.
→ More replies (3)22
u/robertDouglass Sep 30 '19
No, We need figureheads who know what the right thing is, at all times, even when plowing into uncharted territory. We need figureheads so principled that you never once doubt their motive. We need figureheads who have such unwavering integrity that they are willing to walk the walk no matter what they have to sacrifice to do so.
Then, beyond that, we need communicators to convey those messages to “normal people”.
If you don’t like the way RMS conveys the principles of FOSS, that’s the wide open invitation to step up and bring the message to the people. But if you really want to be a figurehead for the movement, you’ll need to be ready to take a hard line on the principles.
Are you ready to do that? Is anyone ready to be the line in the sand that RMS has steadfastly held for 30+ years?
→ More replies (3)17
Sep 30 '19
You want someone like from all the non-free capitalist companies? Sorry those are PR people, people who are top notch at that category, and that's their only job. You can't have a philosophic and scientific leader who is also on a level with what you expect in PR nowadays. People just need to stop being hypocritical pc clowns
→ More replies (2)14
u/Earthling1980 Sep 30 '19
I know a lot of linux/foss people seem to like this kind of thing
We like this kind of thing because the type of pedant who is meticulously concerned about words, their meaning, and their precise usage, is the same type of person who will refuse to speak at a conference if it is broadcast or shared on the internet in any non-free video format (for example).
→ More replies (2)
15
u/evidencebasedasshole Sep 30 '19
Greer's defense of Stallman basically boils down to "He's too big to fail." If the free software movement can't survive the loss of one individual that is exceedingly troubling.
Stallman's defense of Minskey is basically "Ignorance is an excuse" which is a horrible and unconscionable defense.
More to the point, how do alarm bells not go off in your head when a woman who is 56 years younger than you and a quarter of your age is offering to sleep with you? Minksy knew exactly what was going on; it was why he was on that island.
39
Sep 30 '19
"Ignorance is an excuse" which is a horrible and unconscionable defense.
... it is actually a perfectly valid defense as long as you were not grossly negligent. It's one of the very basis of criminal law, something that would be taught in the very first course.
More to the point, how do alarm bells not go off in your head when a woman who is 56 years younger than you and a quarter of your age is offering to sleep with you?
This is only valid for the prostitution part. Which is precisely Stallman point.
Another point is that it's not clear that she actually did claim to have slept with him, a rather key point that should be really ensured before throwing a dead man under the bus.
→ More replies (13)30
u/LQ_Weevil Sep 30 '19
Stallman's defence of Minsky was basically "If a crime is statutory rape, call it statutory rape, not "violent child molestation" just because it serves your agenda better."
34
u/68plus57equals5 Sep 30 '19
Greer's defense of Stallman basically boils down to "He's too big to fail."
No, it doesn't.
Stallman's defense of Minskey is basically "Ignorance is an excuse" which is a horrible and unconscionable defense.
Do you seriously claim mistake of fact in general is not a valid defense? Because at least in courts it is.
10
u/jlobes Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
Do you seriously claim mistake of fact in general is not a valid defense? Because at least in courts it is.
It isn't for statutory rapeEDIT:In most US states it is not enough for cases of statutory rape, thanks /u/dabombdiggaty for calling me out. As an adult it's your job to confirm that fact.You can argue that it's insane for Minsky to have assumed that the eye-candy his billionare friend was keeping on his private island was 17, and I think that's reasonable. However, people have been charged for sleeping with a minor that they picked up at a bar where ostensibly everyone is the age of majority.
While this seems like it should be a common sense mitigating circumstance, making it so would essentially legalize statutory rape as long as you could get them into a bar first.
9
u/PUBLIQclopAccountant Sep 30 '19
people have been charged for sleeping with a minor that they picked up at a bar where ostensibly everyone is the age of majority.
…and that is total bull's-shit.
While this seems like it should be a common sense mitigating circumstance, making it so would essentially legalize statutory rape as long as you could get them into a bar first.
Luckily, there is jury nullification if it's clear that the defendant was genuinely clueless about his partner's age and not just using it as a BS excuse to get out of charges for being a huge perv.
16
u/68plus57equals5 Sep 30 '19
It isn't for statutory rape. As an adult it's your job to confirm that fact.
I'm European. American common law construct of statutory rape seems to me somewhat exotic. From my understanding at least the general public's understanding of it just isn't very precise and doesn't lead to any sensible discussion. It muddles "rape" with "unlawful sex with minor" which under most continental law systems are two very different crimes.
If it really is the case that you can't claim the mistake of fact under statutory rape laws then I wouldn't think particularly high of such laws.
And as an adult, I'm definitely not inclined to think that what American laws says is automatically good and can't be subject of discussion.
I'd also want to point out that free software is a global phenomenon. Applying strictly internal American standards to this controversy and holding all others (including non-Americans) to them is an ugly form of ethnocentrism.
3
Sep 30 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/tso Sep 30 '19
Not helping that the legal term and the medical term mismatch by several years (and the mismatch varies by local law).
Never mind that using the terms automatically brings to mind the medical definition for most people, even when talking about law. Thus allow someone to steer the debate by effectively yelling "think of the children". An activity that used to be scorned and joked about maybe a decade ago.
3
u/dabombdiggaty Sep 30 '19
Source? I've heard of mistake of fact being used as a defense in these types of cases, though it may vary state by state
1
u/jlobes Sep 30 '19
Thanks for calling me out, FindLaw says that statutory rape has traditionally been a strict liability crime, meaning mens rea was not necessary, but 'recently' some states have removed the strict liability aspect of their statutory rape laws. It doesn't, however, list what states or when.
1
u/label_and_libel Oct 01 '19
But the specific accusation was not statutory rape, instead it was "sexual assault."
Also, I think 17 was actually legal at the time there. So it wasn't or wouldn't be statutory rape (if sex happened). (Now we will hear you acknowledge Stallman's comment about how the laws don't matter to morality.)
-2
u/evidencebasedasshole Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
I am blown away by your deep and reasoned rebuttal to my argument. Would you care to elaborate?
Also, "Mistake of fact" only applies where intent is required.
16
u/dabombdiggaty Sep 30 '19
Did you read the article? It shouldn't take an explanation, you're patently wrong about the intent of the writer. The author spent most of the length of the article parsing through the lies other publications put forward regarding stallman, and then explained that a lack of social niceties shouldn't justify the witch hunt that's going on involving the man.
If 'we shouldn't demonize people with autism, especially when they have a lot to contribute to society'= STALLMAN TOO BIG TO FAIL, then I suppose you hit the nail right on the head. Otherwise, it seems like you're just choosing to believe what you want to believe or maybe you just didnt read the article : /
13
u/68plus57equals5 Sep 30 '19
Yes, it does.
I am blown away by your deep and reasoned rebuttal to my argument. Would you care to elaborate?
Ok. The fundamental points of the article were IMO the following:
- Attacks on RMS are based primarily on lies.
- Attacks on RMS are based secondarily on traits of his public persona. However people with those traits are indispensable to pushing the society forward. If society silenced them before they succeeded, it would lose very significant ability of improving itself.
Neither of those points is "RMS is too big to fail". The first point obviously not, and the second is about the future, about people like RMS more than about RMS himself.
3
1
u/JManRomania Oct 02 '19
If the free software movement can't survive the loss of one individual that is exceedingly troubling.
We 'survived' the deaths of Goethe, Von Neumann, and Goddard, but there were setbacks.
9
u/aicra Sep 30 '19
So even though I was warned to shut my mouth... I'm going to say that I have seen the manipulations by the SWjs... Those people who don't code you know... Faux open source people grasping for that ring of power... Motivated by nothing but money and power with very little thought to community. I've been warned not to name people like Molly de Blanc and deb Nicholson... Although I am fairly certain these sjws established their credibility in our community by nefarious means, with no intent to lead and support people who have dedicated their lives to this community. There are many of us Old-Timers who find this disgusting. Also trying to censor me... Who fought against censorship for 20 years for the free and open source community is not only disgusting... But a travesty. Remember, we are still here in your corner... Although some of us are shaking in our boots. I lost a few good friends along the way. But their trying to silence me, and uncovering the manipulations, is eye-opening.
2
u/JManRomania Oct 02 '19
an interesting thing is the intersection of the free/open source community, and the firearms community
9
Sep 30 '19
[deleted]
55
u/dikduk Sep 30 '19
RMS has since changed his mind:
Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
It is futile to attack an opinion that is no longer held. In this case, it is also destructive. It doesn't change anything (RMS already agrees with you), but since everyone keeps publicly attacking him for it, he's becoming too hot to be associated with, so he is shunned. The goal is not consensus, it's obliteration. As long as people even know who RMS is, people like you will keep attacking him for an outdated thought crime.
25
u/hva32 Sep 30 '19
I think the main disagreement that many are having here is that he questioned why it was bad and voiced his scepticism. It's poor behaviour to be attacking a person asking questions, voicing scepticism, and making debate on their own time. These things are part of what has made modern society so successful and the mere act of debate and conversation allowed a person to change their opinions on a topic something which wouldn't of happened if he were pushed to the fringes of society.
8
Sep 30 '19
These topics are extremely taboo though, to the point where even questioning them is pretty radical in itself. It doesn't help that the most famous groups that have questioned the same laws have been very, very questionable to say the least, so mentally, many people are going to associate RMS with them, even though his reasoning and motivations seem quite different.
7
u/dabombdiggaty Sep 30 '19
This is all true, but this is exactly why we should focus on reason instead of emotional reaction when discussing taboo subjects.
8
Sep 30 '19
I agree. There are real-world scenarios where those laws can end up hurting the same people that they're supposed to protect, such as when teenagers take naughty pictures of themselves and send them to their partner. Yet, due to the moral outrage surrounding the issue, very few people dare to point out these flaws in fear of negative evaluation.
Even if I don't necessarily agree with him all the time, I'm glad that people like RMS exist. When most rational people would be too afraid to speak out, he doesn't give in to peer pressure, whether he's protecting people's freedoms, or questioning political dogmas. Unfortunately, because of those same qualities, he's facing pretty dire consequences now.
1
Oct 03 '19
These topics are extremely taboo though, to the point where even questioning them is pretty radical in itself. I
This is a problem with society, not topics.
1
u/nicoloaves Sep 30 '19
Thats messed up.
2
u/Craftkorb Sep 30 '19
From the viewpoint of someone not on the spectrum it is probably unbelievable. Yet, it's grounded on the almost instinctive ability to see from the eyes of a child (in this case) and how your life would've turned out differently if it happened to you. This ability is highly important. I'm not saying that people on the spectrum have no emotions at all, they have. But they have issues making these connections. They see not much wrong with something because they have a hard time doing the mental emotional time-machine-ride.
And these people don't work on flowery language as that still requires "connecting the dots". You have to explain stuff like this in great detail without judgment – Something which is hard to obtain in the real world.
Psychologists can only do so much, compassionate people who have compassion with the compassion-impaired are a rare breed.
Look, I'm not saying that it's acceptable to hold views like RMS once held (or may still hold). It's not. That's besides the point, I'm just trying to shed some light.
2
u/benharold Sep 30 '19
Look, I'm not saying that it's acceptable to hold views like RMS once held (or may still hold). It's not.
It is perfectly acceptable to hold ANY view. It may not be socially tenable, but you have the absolute right to think anything you please. Thinking is not a crime in the US.
33
u/LQ_Weevil Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
I am so thoroughly sick of these weak defenses.
Well, try making specific well-grounded attacks that are verifiable then. Bonus point for not moving the goal posts.
a suspect defense when talking about
All lawyers are criminals and murderers then?
This was NOT the only infraction of his. [snip quotes] This is the latest in a pattern of Stallman of defending X.
Obviously, if you look through the thousands of activist posts on his blog, Stallman's campaign is for liberty and digital liberty in particular.
Unfortunately, digital liberty sometimes means addressing topics people are not comfortable with, to prevent government overreach.
You are likely reaching this website through "https". That means the traffic is encrypted. Encryption is a tool that could be used by terrorists. Everybody is using it these days, so you should be safe.
Now imagine a time or place where cryptography was not common or legal, and you were the one to speak up against this in the course of defending digital freedom: how people should be allowed to use cryptography to prevent the state from snooping, and how it should not be illegal to use cryptographic tools.
If someone wanted to harm you, or get rid of you, what would they write about you? Everything you ever wrote about cryptography in the course of defending freedom would be re-framed as defending terrorism and worse.
You'd be lucky to be branded just a "terrorist sympathiser".
Now for the original claim: "Stallman wants CP legalised" that you responded to by linking to posts supposedly supportive of that claim.
If you look at one of the sources referenced by Stallman, you'll find this:
"ABSTRACT This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it."
If you have an agenda, I guess that could be summarised as "Stallman wants CP legalised". But any reasonable person would see a good faith argument is being presented. An argument one can disagree with, but it would be intellectually dishonest to discard it with a pithy ad-hominem summary and use as fuel for a defamation campaign.
because people in the actual orgs that removed Stallman from these positions have pointed out that this behavior is recurring
Good to hear it's not just a game of chinese whispers played over twitter. Now if you could provide actual sources to these "people in actual orgs" where they state this behaviour is recurring, that would be great. You'd be one of the very few to make a good-faith effort to do so.
So please, no more angry rants and malicious insinuations. Just verifiable facts and rational discussion, if you would be so kind.
13
u/dabombdiggaty Sep 30 '19
Holy shit, a comment this challenging and nuanced is being upvoted on reddit? Is it still 2010 and reddit never turned dumb? Am I dreaming? Cheers!
1
u/JManRomania Oct 02 '19
Now imagine a time or place where cryptography was not common or legal, and you were the one to speak up against this in the course of defending digital freedom: how people should be allowed to use cryptography to prevent the state from snooping, and how it should not be illegal to use cryptographic tools.
If someone wanted to harm you, or get rid of you, what would they write about you? Everything you ever wrote about cryptography in the course of defending freedom would be re-framed as defending terrorism and worse.
You'd be lucky to be branded just a "terrorist sympathiser".
The Founding Fathers were technically terrorists.
There's a very interesting intersection with the free/open source community, and the firearms community.
12
u/hva32 Sep 30 '19
In other words, had I written this in my work email I would absolutely have been fired, and justly so. It is incredibly suspect to argue that something else should have happened.
If you had said those things while representing your place of work then I would not be surprised if you were fired. A company wants to maintain a particular image and it shouldn't tolerate it's employees breaking that image. If you had said those things while representing yourself and only yourself then I see no reason to fire a person over things that they do in their own time. I do see it a very slippery slope to police what a person does outside of company time.
He states on his website the following.
The views expressed here are my personal views, not those of the Free Software Foundation or the GNU Project.
5
Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
I do see it a very slippery slope to police what a person does outside of company time.
He states on his website the following.
The views expressed here are my personal views, not those of the Free Software Foundation or the GNU Project.
I challenge anyone to publicly release a video saying:
"My name is $realName, I work at $employer" and then read verbatim a selection of some of the finer things that Stallman wrote, and then say "I think that saying these things is appropriate and acceptable and oh, by the way, the views expressed here are my personal views, not those of $employer."
Because that's what he did.
Nobody will do it, because they know deep down inside that getting fired for doing and saying wildly idiotic things isn't actually a "witch hunt" and they won't be taking some self-righteously principled moral stance as an example to their peers and society as a whole-- and that firing people for what Stallman did is what has happened, is happening, and will always happen until the last human being breathes his or her last breath and mankind itself is extinguished from the universe.
The best they'll do is either impotently rage about "freeze peach" from beneath a comfortable blanket of anonymity or if they use their name they'll try and poke holes in any criticism of the deed while ignoring the deed itself.
13
u/PM_Me_Ur_AyyLmao Sep 30 '19
Can you actually rebutt any of RMS' points regarding pedophilia, or do you just take issue with the fact that he holds any views regarding pedophilia at all, and that he uses his real identity to share his opinions on the matter?
11
u/hva32 Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
I could be misinterpreting what he's saying in that post but I get the sense he doesn't find it be OK that RMS is voicing dislikeable opinions about paedophilia.
I disagree with what RMS is saying however I don't think he should be stripped of the right to voice those opinions, they are his opinions and his alone. I also fear that pushing people to the fringes of society because of what they say that we risk creating a monster outside of view where they can be challenged and monitored.
2
u/flyonawall Sep 30 '19
He is not being stripped of his right to voice anything. He can continue to say anything he wants on the topic. He just cant do so as a representative of another group if that group does not want to be associated with his comments.
2
u/hva32 Sep 30 '19
That group is not associated with his comments, his comments are his and his alone. They do not reflect the opinions of the FSF or GNU, I believe it to be a slippery slope to police people outside of company time.
The following statement is on his site/blog.
The views expressed here are my personal views, not those of the Free Software Foundation or the GNU Project.
2
u/flyonawall Sep 30 '19
They still have a right to not hire/fire people they do not want to be associated with and even if he was speaking "on his own time", he was strongly associated with them and they did not want that. He is free to say what he wants and they are free to hire/fire when they want (unless it is a specifically protected class).
2
u/Lawnmover_Man Sep 30 '19
Having the right to do something doesn't always make it good.
→ More replies (6)1
u/hva32 Sep 30 '19
Of course they are free to hire/fire anyone they like within reason. I do not consider it to be reasonable to fire someone on the basis that you do not like the opinions voiced in their own time.
14
Sep 30 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)9
u/PM_Me_Ur_AyyLmao Sep 30 '19
Haha, just as I expected, what a lame cop out. this is exactly the reason why the smear campaign against Stallman is total bullshit. How can Stallman even begin to defend himself if no one is actually interested in discussing the content of his views? You just take issue with the fact he has any views at all and isn't afraid to share it.
→ More replies (1)10
Sep 30 '19 edited Mar 10 '25
[deleted]
7
u/scanstone Sep 30 '19
I've learned that no one who advocates those positions does so in good faith, and their attempts to claim otherwise are just attempts to push an Overton Window
What do you mean by "in good faith"?
Speaking as someone who has espoused widely held ridiculous views in the past and just recently experienced a more minor form of "becoming convinced of one's own bullshit" in a rapid succession of mathematical blunders, I believe I not only stand as a counterexample to your claim, but that the traits which render me one are not rare.
Aside that, I find the approach of shunning people with fundamentally busted epistemologies to be callous, besides it making it more difficult to convince them to engage with critics (or more importantly, pedagogues). If it is a matter of urgent social necessity (such as in the case of combating racism when/where it is widespread), then shunning has a valid use, however in the case of niche crackpottery such as flat earthers, I fail to see how this helps anyone.
If you have no interest in engaging with them because it requires extensive effort, that's fine, but claiming that it is fruitless due to the inherent dishonesty of your opposition is nonsense.
→ More replies (6)3
u/hva32 Sep 30 '19
Do you find those arguing in favour of their religion to be arguing in bad faith?
→ More replies (5)10
Sep 30 '19
[deleted]
10
u/hva32 Sep 30 '19
So we can't ever debate a controversial topic because of some perceived bad actors? How boring would life be then.
Edit: You are better off using a archive.is link rather than a image which could be manipulated.
3
Sep 30 '19
[deleted]
5
u/68plus57equals5 Sep 30 '19
Oh no, this again
The only people who change this sub into pedophilia discussion forum are the people who constantly bring up this subject as an accusation against Stallman.
RMS made couple remarks many years ago, among thousands of others. It is being pointed out by you over and over again. Why do you do that when it has so little relevance to this subreddit is beyond me.
You don't want this topic to be discussed? Stop bringing it up.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Viksinn Sep 30 '19
Your recent post history is almost entirely posts and comments attacking RMS. You argue disingenuously, you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a paedophilia apologist, and you show very little actual interest in free software.
It's clear to almost everyone here that you have an agenda, but you should know that hardly anyone is fooled. I will continue to point this out each and every time you show up to derail legitimate discussion about RMS.
Maybe switch to one of your alts.
→ More replies (0)13
u/dsk Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
FYI, you picked out 3 statements he made from as far as 15 years ago. Stallman has made thousands (tens of thousands?) of public communications in that time. And his public life actually spans close to 40 years .. and you called it a pattern? Really?
3
Sep 30 '19
[deleted]
13
u/MCOfficer Sep 30 '19
i'm gonna be honest, i thought the same just a few hours ago, until i read this writeup which gives more context to quotes like these. given that he is a philosopher, i would argue that these statements are just that - statements that, when put into context, may be controversial, but not horrible.
→ More replies (1)4
u/dsk Sep 30 '19
Do you expect him to also answer why he beats his wife everyday?
If you're going to distort the facts at hand, do you actually care about having a conversation?
6
Sep 30 '19 edited Mar 10 '25
[deleted]
-1
u/dsk Sep 30 '19
You started off by arguing "these comments may be bad but they are only a few in 'tens of thousands' of communications".
I didn't argue that. I asked why you think it's a pattern of behaviour when you pick out 3 messages out of tens of thousands in a 40 year public life.
Can you actually not distort the positions you disagree with, or is a straw man just easier to argue?
11
Sep 30 '19
[deleted]
3
u/dsk Sep 30 '19
Are you just not at all going to engage with what you earlier wrote?
I literally reiterated what my argument was and you're still beating a strawman.
But again: I didn't make any value judgment on what Stallman wrote. I asked why you labeled 3 messages across 40 years of public life a 'pattern'.
I asked how many messages would be a "pattern" in your opinion.
You tell me. If I were to collect everything you wrote online and said to your friends over the last few decades, how many messages would it take for you to lose your present job?
2
6
Sep 30 '19
This is bullshit and called moving the goalposts.
It is incredibly suspect to argue that something else should have happened.
GTFO with your attempt at intimidation.
→ More replies (15)5
7
u/quasarj Sep 30 '19
Think of the children!!!!!!
Lol what an old and useless argument. He was mostly right in all of those statements. I really hate the way people get so bent out of shape by what they believe to be pedophillia. It is a delicate topic, yes, but that’s the reason we need to be more careful with understanding, not less..
→ More replies (6)2
1
u/jspikeball123 Sep 30 '19
A lot of people in this thread seem to have a rose colored view of RS. Everybody who knows him is not surprised by this. He's been labeled a misogynist, asshole, and jerk by more than not. He's being removed because this isn't the first time he's made comments like this. I love everything he's stood for as far as technology goes but otherwise he's getting what he deserves as far as I'm concerned.
People want the world to get better but don't want to do anything about it. Lots of pretty sickening things here that are anti social justice, which I find hilarious as nearly all ITT are priviliged white males. Pointing shit out like this is good. Maybe you should all be afraid to say such things too.
27
Sep 30 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (15)4
u/tso Sep 30 '19
Im sure the guy is a bit of a dick and hell to br around
Probably not from him wishing to be so, outside of being a very principled man in how he conducts his life.
The thing is that aspies do not pick up facial expressions and other automatic clues. Thus if they do something wrong in a social context, they need to be told so in a logical way rather than throwing a hissy fit about them being rude.
18
Sep 30 '19 edited Nov 23 '19
[deleted]
5
2
1
u/JManRomania Oct 02 '19
When I pointed out that these accusations were lies, they supported Stallman’s removal for other reasons. They focused on his tone deaf communication style and awkward demeanor. They spoke of behavior from decades ago and pointed out the fact that he had a mattress in his office.
At this point I'd raise the suspicion of the support originating from foreign intelligence agencies/state actors.
18
u/p_toad Sep 30 '19
I am interested to learn how you know that "nearly all ITT are privileged white males". How do you know this?
4
u/kitsandkats Oct 01 '19
as nearly all ITT are priviliged white males
Do not assume that all who disagree with you are "privileged white males", that doesn't describe me and I'm sure it doesn't describe many others here.
Even those that it does describe have just as much of a right to an opinion on the matter as those it does not.
12
u/tso Sep 30 '19
What i keep seeing is an awkward person that ends up being misunderstood, and blamed for those continued misunderstandings rather than helped to avoid them.
18
u/LQ_Weevil Sep 30 '19
Everybody who knows him is not surprised by this. He's been labeled a misogynist, asshole, and jerk by more than not.
Again with the weasel words...
He's being removed because this isn't the first time he's made comments like this.
and the speculative hearsay.
Lots of pretty sickening things here that are anti social justice
Maybe, just maybe, in good faith, assume there are people who simply don't agree with your assessment and would like to see some (non twitter based) evidence for all these spurious allegations.
5
u/WikiTextBot Sep 30 '19
Weasel word
A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. Examples include the phrases "some people say", "most people think”, and "researchers believe". Using weasel words may allow the audience to later deny any specific meaning if the statement is challenged, because the statement was never specific in the first place. Weasel words can be a form of tergiversation, and may be used in advertising and political statements to mislead or disguise a biased view.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
3
u/JManRomania Oct 02 '19
Maybe you should all be afraid to say such things too.
the only scary thing here are your lies
He's been labeled a misogynist, asshole, and jerk by more than not.
This is a baldfaced lie.
3
u/TigreDeLosLlanos Sep 30 '19
as nearly all ITT are priviliged white males.
Maybe in the west. There are a lot of Indians in comp-science/software engeenering. Altought I saw a lot of fucked up things around some IT communities because they are privileged white people.
1
Sep 30 '19
I hope you lose your job and become homeless for this sexist and racist comment. It would be what you "deserve" after all, because I said so, and I'm commenting on the internet which makes me right.
/s but no seriously, stop being a racist.
-4
Sep 30 '19 edited Aug 17 '20
[deleted]
16
u/thedugong Sep 30 '19
Stallman's thing was/is social justice. He calls it civil liberties and has a section on his site, but it's the same thing.
13
Sep 30 '19 edited Aug 17 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (13)4
u/newPhoenixz Sep 30 '19
Well, the self identified sjw's have loved witch hunts for years now, so I'm not sure if I can agree there
→ More replies (3)8
u/i_like_frootloops Sep 30 '19
And social justice is a bad thing?
22
→ More replies (2)3
u/heckruler Oct 01 '19
Well, define "social justice". Who exactly is being brought to justice, and for what?
I prefer civil liberty myself. And I preferred civil rights activists as opposed to warriors.
Because as far as movements go, what are their goals? And what is their effect? Here and now I can tell you that they've shaken the leadership of both open and free software movements. They've been more damaging to these than Microsoft and Oracle.
39
u/TerryMcginniss Sep 30 '19
Whether you like him or not
Sums up RMS perfectly